FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

Have a positive and constructive tone

Are on topic, clear and to-the-point

Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

You are reading comments on the story:

If one expert told you your house was overpriced by 58 percent and another said it was undervalued by 28 percent, you might want to get a third opinion. Maybe a fourth too. And that's the gap between experts trying to figure out the federal vs. industry pay gap, Senior Correspondent Mike Causey says.

Anyone can post a comment here, so Mr. Causey can't be held responsible for the quality of them. When he writes his column around what readers have communicated directly to him, though, he is making a choice in what to publish and it may be seen that he favors stupidities. For example, the first person he quotes makes a typically sweeping, know-nothing comment that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the private to fed pay comparison matter ("If you want instant money, big bucks, a great car and house right away, choose the private sector. If you want a modest living for years and years and somewhat of a retirement, choose the fed.") The last of the three commenters, who was grossing ~97K while his private contractor counterpart was doing essentially the same job as he and grossing ~$250K at least has his own personal experience to cite, but he too shows himself to be less than well-informed. ("I believe my private-sector counterpart continued to work at Bearing Point, he very well could have been laid off at the conclusion of the specific contract. And therein lies the difference.") That private-sector counterpart may or may not have been laid off or even let go at the conclusion of that specific contract, but it is almost certain that he didn't have a job with Bearing Point after 2009, when that company went belly up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BearingPoint), which is something the federal government doesn't do. It would be nice if Mr. Causey's columns and the readers' comments he picks out were more informative, and thus worth our time to read. (Yeah, I know, it's free, so I can have my money back any time and/or just not bother to come here.)

I guess I am ignorant because I have no clue as to the actual accuracy of these people who comment. Mr. Causey probably does not have time to verify the accuracy of the commentators he picks unless it is obvious. That is rare. If you see a mistake or something left out, blog it or send an email to Mr. Causey. I have done so and he does appreciate it. Anyway, I enjoy the columns and the blogs no matter whether I agree or disagree with them. That makes it fun and enjoyable and keeps my mind relatively sharp.

Truly, unless you did a very specific job to job comparison these numbers are going to be off balance every time. For instance, the federal position of a project officer for construction related fields. The private sector project officer is assigned one, maybe two projects to handle and oversee. A federal construction project officer maybe overseeing more than a dozen projects, but on paper they do the same job and according to some should be paid the same amount. The job title might be the same, but the work load for most federal employees is usually much greater than the private sector especially with the decrease in staff which increases our work loads. Not to mention the ridiculous sea of red tape we have to try and navigate through as federal employees.

Out of curiosity, I did a quick Google search for the 2011 annual base salaries of other countries national legislatures. Here's what I found (in US dollars @ current exchange rates): UK-$103,000; Germany-$117,000; European Union-$118,500; France-$125,000; Canada-$158,000; United State-$174,000. Given that none of these other countries have national debt equal to their annual GDP, and have managed to provide basic services such as national health care for their citizens, I'd have to say that our members of Congress are GROSSLY overpaid.

I have to disagree that the comments were uninformative. A great quote (Twain??) was there are lies, d__m lies, and statistics." All three are people trying to get you to do something.
In my view federal pay is somewhere close to reasonable. The real test is the government doesn't have major shortfalls in applicants. Are they overpaid? No - turnover would be a lot lower and competition for positions would be much more aggressive. A major factor not discussed is job satisfaction - many feds like what they do, as it is generally something important. Another major factor is their relationship with their boss. I think people can balance pay, benefits, stability, and other factors to see the value in the work.
The recent fed bashing, pay freezes, etc may make people decide the balance has shifted. If they are eligible for retirement (as most feds are) that will result in a large number of retirements. Hasn't happened yet, so I still think most people think the deal is good.

in many ways. First, same job at different agencies has different grades. E.g., most pentagon jobs are higher graded than other agencies. Then consider other perks like cars or O.T. Most feds get neither, but then don't have the hassles that come with the perks. Like Mike says, if you think somebody else has it so great, then go get a job like them.